Cruz tax plan

[KUSA]

Absolutely not. USA does not have universal healthcare, therefore people who get a chronic NCD that requires ongoing treatment such as cancer will need private health cover, and as there's no way to know in advance whether a person will get cancer or some other expensive health problem in the future, they need to be protected now in the present. The penalties could conceivably be abolished in the future at such time that universal healthcare does exist, however that's not going to happen any time soon.

The penalties can not be abolished because it is necessary to force people into buying the crap so the whole thing can be funded. Also, if people were not forced to get it, they would just sign up when they go an illness.

You're a complete idiot if you actually believe that. The main thing Obamacare did that was of benefit for people was to ensure that insurance companies could not refuse cover. That has two effects: firstly, and most importantly, it means those previously denied cover because they were already sick or "high risk" patients are able to have the same access to healthcare as everyone else. Secondly, as a result of this it means there are now more healthcare consumers in a finite system putting greater pressure on hospitals and consequently making the service worse for everyone else. Both those things are true. But the goal is not to provide a better service for everyone, it's to ensure that everyone has access to an equitable service for expensive life-threatening illnesses.

You are a complete idiot and a cunt regardless of what you believe.

Although there were some positive things in the plan, it benefited the insurance companies more than anything else. They now have all the young low risk people paying into it forcibly. $$$$$

[Tiberius]

Now, Tibs...you know that no one actually pays a "death tax" here in the states, right?  99.8% of estates aren't subject in the first place, the remaining .2% can write off. Works up the plebs though, keeps em pulling the lever.

Ah, I wasn't aware. In the UK anything over ~$500k is taxed at 40%, which means children who inherit relatively modest houses (in certain areas) from their parents could end up having to sell them in order to afford the taxes on them. It's utterly ridiculous; money/assets should only be subject to taxes once.

Absolutely not. USA does not have universal healthcare, therefore people who get a chronic NCD that requires ongoing treatment such as cancer will need private health cover, and as there's no way to know in advance whether a person will get cancer or some other expensive health problem in the future, they need to be protected now in the present. The penalties could conceivably be abolished in the future at such time that universal healthcare does exist, however that's not going to happen any time soon.

Right, but surely it's a person's own choice whether they get coverage or not. This isn't a situation where lack of coverage affects other people like with cars. If a person doesn't want health insurance and they get sick, that's their own fault. Besides, some people just can't afford private insurance, and live in a state which has an Obamacare Gap, meaning they can't get discounted insurance via the state either. Why should those people be punished by a penalty (meaning they lose more money)?

I'm not against Obamacare btw, I think it's a step in the right direction, especially in terms of pre-existing conditions, but I disagree with the penalties, especially in regards to people who cannot afford the premiums in the first place.

[Minimalist]

The mandates were the cost of getting the insurance industry to sign on.  Insurance only works if you have a large enough "pool" to finance the people who actually use it.  Just as no auto insurance company could survive by only insuring bad drivers no health insurance company can survive by only insuring sick people.  If you don't require people to join before they get sick the model does not work.

BTW, the idea for the individual mandates arose in 1993 in a bill put forward by republican senator, John Chafee.  And, most famously, when Romney introduced Romneycare in Massachusetts it included those same individual mandates.

In fact, the republicunts didn't get upset about individual mandates until that black, socialist, muslim, Kenyan put them in his plan.  Then all of sudden they became radioactive.

I wonder why that was?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, I wasn't aware. In the UK anything over ~$500k is taxed at 40%, which means children who inherit relatively modest houses (in certain areas) from their parents could end up having to sell them in order to afford the taxes on them. It's utterly ridiculous; money/assets should only be subject to taxes once.

Yeah, here in the states you have to hit @6mil per person......after deductions and writeoffs.  If  you do hit it...through abject ignorance and an utter lack of even -trying- to manage your multi-million dollar windfall(lol?), then you could be on the hook for @17% of it's value.  

Amusingly, the politicians here stump on a story not unlike the one above..that people have to sell the family farm to pay the taxes on the family farm...despite the story being entirely - and transparently - fictional.  At worst, they'll put on a lien on the property and set a payment plan (which..itself, can be gotten around -entirely- by further exemptions). Doesn't matter how many times you correct them on it either, they keep selling the lie, and the poor people at the bottom keep pulling the lever thinking that they may one day face such a tax.   Murica!

Personally, I've never understood people's aversion to asset related taxes. It's not as if our military, for example, is guarding poor landless renters.

[Aractus]

Right, but surely it's a person's own choice whether they get coverage or not.

Is it a person's choice whether they get sewage or not?

Right, but surely it's a person's own choice whether they get coverage or not. This isn't a situation where lack of coverage affects other people like with cars. If a person doesn't want health insurance and they get sick, that's their own fault.

Since when is it the patient's fault that they got sick?

I'm not against Obamacare btw, I think it's a step in the right direction, especially in terms of pre-existing conditions, but I disagree with the penalties, especially in regards to people who cannot afford the premiums in the first place.

You might have a point if you remove the word "especially" which becomes: "I disagree with the penalties, in regards to people who cannot afford the premiums in the first place."

But solving that wouldn't involve removing the penalty, it would involve creating a social support service to buy health-cover for patients who can't afford it.